3 total
The s. 11(b) Charter application was dismissed as net delay fell below the 18-month ceiling.
The defendant, Astrit Shkurta, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay.
The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay as 802 days.
After subtracting 286 days attributed to defence delay (including delays in Crown Pretrial Hearing (CPT) and Judicial Pretrial Hearing (JPT) scheduling, and lack of contact between the defendant and counsel), the net delay was found to be 516 days (16.96 months).
As this net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, the court found no s. 11(b) breach and dismissed the application.
The court also noted no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay in this specific case.
Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment with 14 years parole ineligibility for domestic second degree murder.
The offenders pleaded guilty to second degree murder in the death of the male offender's ex-girlfriend.
The victim was attacked with a hammer in the driveway of her home.
The Crown and defence jointly submitted that both offenders should be sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.
The court accepted the joint submission, finding it reflected the domestic nature of the murder as a significant aggravating factor, while recognizing the mitigating effect of the guilty pleas and the offenders' lack of prior criminal records.
Three young persons found guilty of first-degree murder based on text messages and surveillance; one acquitted.
Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.
The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.
The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.
The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.